Hot air or cool heads?

The advent of Trumpism raises concerns among environmental scientists and resource managers that critical decisions about the global future will be based on political hot air and empty policy rather than good science. The risk is that this will accelerate the rate of climate change and destabilise worldwide efforts to curb emissions negotiated at the Paris COP21 (2015). Significant international agreements that consider needs of both developed and developing countries, and inter-disciplinary efforts to understand social, environmental and economic implications of climate science and adaptation, are now threatened by diplomatic (not just Trump-type physical) walls.

In Australia, similar turbulence is evident. Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement came into force on 9 September 2016. We are increasingly confronted with severe weather impacts from bushfires and floods, winning records for the hottest or wettest year. Yet, the federal government has reduced its renewable energy targets and is supporting foreign investment in additional coal mining development through public expenditure on infrastructure. This flies in the face of the Productivity Commission’s recommendations that all Australian governments put in place best practice governance arrangements so that decisions about the provision of public infrastructure are ‘undertaken in the public interest, taken to be the wellbeing of the community as a whole’ (PC 2014, p. 39). As we write this editorial, the Federal Court announced that the Australian Conservation Foundation lost its appeal against the lawfulness of government’s approval of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine. This was Australia’s first case to proceed to court arguing against a development based on the fact that burning of coal will have an impact on global warming. It seems that IPCC advice on the urgent need to reduce emissions does not weigh well against the pursuit of more ‘jobs’. Surely stronger reliance on evidence-based policy would produce greater net public benefits.

Garnaut (2011) claimed that putting a price on carbon would increase the profitability of investment in innovation and that transforming the electricity sector is at the heart of Australia’s transition to a low-emissions economy. Yet, we have seen direct employment in renewable energy activities in Australia fall from 19,220 full-time jobs in 2009–2010 to 11,150 jobs in 2015–2016, a decrease of 42 per cent (ABS 2017). In spite of this, jurisdictions still strive for more sustainable energy. South Australia aims to deliver battery storage on a grand scale, and the Australian Capital Territory plans a transition to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2020 aided by the country’s largest community-owned solar farm. Many communities and individuals are also doing their bit. It is hard to argue with the cold logic of those close to the ground, who bear the brunt of pollution and extreme weather impacts resulting from unmitigated emissions. But policy alignment among jurisdictions is necessary to facilitate reaching global targets.

New Zealand has the inherent advantage of hydropower, which contributes up to 60 per cent of the country’s electricity. With over 80 per cent of electricity currently from renewable sources, a target of 90 per cent by 2025 seems feasible. The increase is expected to be made up by wind power.

US President Trump’s ‘Energy Independence’ executive order effectively removed the previous administration’s restrictions on fossil fuel production, in the interests of putting ‘miners back to work’. Given Mr Trump’s electioneering rhetoric, it is not surprising that he has moved quickly to implement policies he asserts will create jobs for his supporters among the blue-collar workers in the oil, natural gas and coal energy production sectors. Of concern, and against the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies, is Trump’s assertion that global warming is a Chinese ‘hoax’, which is buoyed by his newly appointed Environmental Protection Agency head who does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming. At this stage, the order does not withdraw the US from the Paris COP 21 agreement, but it does signal that withdrawal is possible, which would undermine global commitments. It is also likely to make it more difficult for the country to achieve its carbon reduction goals (see Carter & Ross 2016).

In the US, clean energy jobs are increasing rapidly (solar by 25 per cent; wind by 35 per cent in 2016), perhaps making the change in policy counterproductive. Solar panel and wind turbine technologies have advanced considerably, with the promise of emissions-free electricity production and cost savings when full production and environmental costs are considered. In 2016, of the 1.9 million workers in electric power generation and fuels technologies, 55 per cent were employed in traditional coal, oil and gas areas, while almost 800,000 were employed in low-carbon emission generation technologies. Just under 374,000 work, in whole or in part, for solar firms. An additional 102,000 workers are employed at wind firms across the nation (USDoE 2017).

For Australia and New Zealand, and the rest of the world, does US energy policy suggest the future of our own, through a half-hearted commitment to a low-carbon energy future delaying significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? Evidence suggests that any delay will shift economic and social costs to future generations. What happened to a concern for intergenerational equity?

The enormous support for the global March for Science on 22 April 2017 was prompted by the concern about a growing anti-science culture. It is a timely reminder to politicians and policy-makers to enact evidence-based policies in the public interest.

Our core readership is comprised of environmental managers. This journal is one of many that rigorously assess applied scientific research to inform readers, and stimulate thinking about new ways to continuously improve our planet through policy or practice. We would like to think that evidence will be used to support decision-making to benefit future generations. You, our readers, can play a part in that.

Articles in this issue

Consistent with this journal’s practice, the six articles in this issue demonstrate the desire of researchers to communicate science to inform policy and decision-making.

The first article, by Ralph Chapman, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Kate Whitwell and Alyssa Thomas reinforces the importance of policy alignment between jurisdictional levels. They assess the gap between commitment and outcomes in achieving ambitious transport emissions targets in Wellington and Auckland. Both cities' emissions are not falling significantly, and the share of motor vehicles, cycling and walking as modes of commuting is only changing slowly. The authors attribute these disappointing findings to an ‘ambition gap’ between local governments’ stated goals and actual measures, limited policy levers, and the misalignment of central government policies which cramp these cities’ political will and practical ability to reduce emissions. Opportunities lie in public transport infrastructure investment and promotion, land-use planning to support compact city development and better coordination between levels of government.

Janine Chapman, Somayeh Parvazian and Natalie Skinner match two sources of quantitative data to ask how Australians rate as environmental citizens, compared with other countries. They argue that the Australian population is relatively environmentally concerned, but actual physical environmental performance is low when compared with other developed countries. Some argue that environmental issues may be eclipsed by more immediate personal concerns, including economic considerations, aligned with conservative national leadership. These findings confirm and add to studies by Morrison et al. (2013) and Reser et al. (2012). They also note the increasing ‘bottom-up’ approach by environmental groups to influence the political framework.

In an unusual type of policy analysis based on quantitative research, Louisa Mamouney explores New South Wales’ environmental policy from 1979 to 2010. Over that period there was a marked shift in interest from coast, forests, rivers, soils and catchments, to climate change, pollution, water quantity, waste and wetlands. Marine and alpine environments were added from 1995. Differences between political party agendas were less marked than expected. Mamouney argues that policy agendas should be understood as an interaction between government decision-makers and other actors and ideas. In this case, while there is some evidence of policy change as a result of crises, the agenda responded mostly to new information, and changes in the social and economic environment, an encouraging sign for evidence-based policy.

Claire Settre and Sarah Wheeler take an historical view of a century of interventions in the internationally and nationally significant wetlands of the lower River Murray, including the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. They find that infrastructure interventions, both active (e.g. fishways at barrages) and reactive (e.g. to prevent acidification) have dominated over other policy mechanisms such as market-based instruments. This has led to perverse impacts and unanticipated costs. Infrastructure has cost over $410 million since interventions began. Within a nuanced argument about complex options, in the context of indecision about whether these waters should be managed as fresh or estuarine, and the influence of droughts, these authors suggest that demand-based management strategies such as environmental water acquisitions are more sustainable. They argue further that cultural flows and climate change impacts must be considered to improve ecological condition.

Port development along the Queensland coast is a controversial issue. Samantha Paredes, Sean Pascoe, Louisa Coglan, Sarah Jennings, Satoshi Yamazaki and James Innes review Australian policy and legislation about the dumping of dredge spoil at sea. Dumping at sea is low cost compared with on-shore options, and its management is hampered by lack of property rights in the marine environment. Where costs have been imposed on dumping dredge spoil in the marine environment, the lump sum nature does not incentivise more socially and environmentally acceptable options. Since outright bans on dredging are not possible everywhere, incentive-based systems such as levies, bonds and damage quotas, merit greater consideration.

In a complementary examination, Piers Larcombe and Angus Morrison-Saunders argue the need for greater focus on marine physical sedimentary processes in environmental impact assessment of marine dredging and dumping. The authors note discrepancies with assessment of terrestrial developments, wondering if practice is lagging, or the underwater is ‘out of sight, out of mind’. They suggest a need for more stringent policies embedded in regulatory processes and improved technical case-by-case assessment.

Editors’ tip – beware of predatory publishers

We hope our authors are not easily taken in, but with the rise of open access journals (see last issue), a new phenomenon of ‘predatory open access publishers’ has emerged. These are purported journals which exist to take authors’ money, without providing a true publishing service (or quality, refereed publications). At worst, these are websites which offer to ‘publish’ one’s work for a minimal fee, say $ US30, and do little more than help with formatting and load a non-refereed document. The journals have semi-plausible names, often similar to those of reputable journals. Some are very sophisticated in appearance, and in soliciting authors. Authors from developing countries are most often caught. There are also some journals in a ‘grey area’, which charge a mid-range fee, which could plausibly permit publishing from a developing country, but bear many of the hallmarks of the obviously predatory publishers. From 2010 until very recently, USA librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory open access publishers was a valuable resource. Beall, apparently tired of harassment and a lawsuit has ceased publishing the list, but an archived 2016 list can still be found on the web. A few of the many signs of predatory journals are high speed, lack of or very token peer review, fake impact factors, very wide scope (just ‘science’), locations in countries not known for academic publishing in English, and journals with titles such as European journal of  … that have no Europeans as authors or on the editorial board.